Alisia Hargest-Davis v. Crescent M & P, LLC. Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued April 28, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00328-CV ——————————— ALISIA HARGEST-DAVIS, Appellant V. CRESCENT M&P, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 164th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2013-60906 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Alisia Hargest-Davis, has appealed from the trial court’s February 24, 2015 final judgment. We dismiss the appeal. After appellant filed her “Pro Se Appellant’s Brief,” this Court ordered appellant to file an amended brief conforming to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 no later than November 12, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a)-(d), (f)-(i), (k). On November 17, 2015, appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief. This Court granted the motion and extended the time to file the amended brief to December 9, 2015. Appellant, however, did not file an amended brief. On March 1, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time for filing an amended brief had passed and the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if appellant did not file an amended brief or a motion for an extension of time to file the brief by March 11, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal of appeals in civil cases); see also In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978)) (“We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure.”). Appellant has not responded. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to file an amended brief. See Valdez v. Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 01-14-00546CV, 2015 WL 222128, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 15, 2015, no pet.). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.